What is a crime? A crime is an act of omission, defined by statutory or common law, deserving of a punishment or penalty.
Piracy, treason, and counterfeiting are the only crimes properly defined in the U.S. Constitution. Any other crimes documented in the United States are defined by state and local jurisdictions.
If someone is charged with a crime, and they are found not guilty or eventually the charges are dropped, did the crime legally occur?
They are innocent in the eyes of the law until a jury or judge declares guilt. If the NIBRS is an incident-based form of data, and our legal system says the perpetrator is not guilty of the offense, how do we still consider that a crime if American citizens are innocent until proven guilty?
This raises a profound philosophical question that leads to further inquiries: If we fail to accurately distinguish between alleged crimes and those resulting in imposed punishment, are we inadvertently doing society a disservice by relying on skewed data? Could such discrepancies contribute to more lenient sentences or perpetuate the misconception that crime is less severe or widespread than it truly is?
As a sample example of this scenario, the State of Minnesota, on its UCR crime report for 2023, listed assault as one of the top crimes in Hennepin County, with an incident arrest or crime reported of 4,203 in 2023. However, when I venture to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Data Dashboard, I note that only 2,417 police incidents actually ended up charged, and of those, only 682 were charged and sentenced to any penalty whatsoever. This data also concludes that 96% of these incidents were classified as felonies.
Another example of this for the ladies: The report of drug arrests for the state of Minnesota for females in 2023 was 2,764. The number of women serving sentences for drug offenses currently in the Shakopee women’s prison is a mere 290. This means less than 10% of the females arrested for drug offenses serve any prison time in Minnesota. More than likely, these offenses were pled down to misdemeanors or lesser charges.
One additional example to consider: I had a colleague recently who was traveling on his motorcycle heading home late at night. He was driving his motorcycle at 135 mph. A patrol officer followed him, but because of his rate of speed, it took the officer a moment to catch up to him. He was pulled over, arrested for fleeing a police officer, reckless driving, and speeding. Seven months later, his case was pled down to misdemeanor reckless driving. He paid a fine of $400 and received one year of unsupervised probation. His behavior could have killed him, the officer, or other drivers. He was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors that could have resulted in prison time and thousands of dollars in fines. He ended up with, in my opinion, almost no punishment at all.
The UCR crime report lists 16,259 cases that were felony convictions eligible for incarceration. Of those, 10,011 received stayed sentences, or no prison time served.
As crime rates in the state of Minnesota have risen since 2021, it would make sense to believe that penalties for those crimes would be increasing. As a citizen concerned with public safety, you may choose to vote for a local candidate that takes a tough-on-crime stance, hoping the legislature will make changes.
What few Minnesotans know is that by and large, the Minnesota State Legislature doesn’t determine sentencing guidelines. It is an important, powerful, and largely unknown body called the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (MSGC) that is charged with this task. Most members serve a four-year term and are appointed by the governor. The sentencing guidelines commission recommendations and changes are set into place every year on August 1, and are only changed if a legislator objects to a particular change. MSGC primarily uses data that is reported to them by the state district courts regarding the sentencing of defendants, including departures from the sentencing guidelines, stays of execution of sentences, etc. This data is all mandated by statute to be sent to the MSGC so they can monitor how sentencing is going. They also rely heavily on researchers from the Robina Institute at the University of Minnesota. Those researchers use data from the UCR/NIBRS, the Department of Corrections, and the district courts regarding the charging and sentencing of defendants.
I present this information as an introduction to what I believe is a deeply flawed practice in how crimes are reported, charged, and ultimately sentenced. Additionally, I offer this as evidence supporting the view that the Minnesota State Sentencing Commission operates as an unconstitutional body, effectively usurping the legislature’s role in representing the people. Section 22 of the Minnesota State Constitution explicitly states that no law shall be passed unless voted for by a majority of all members elected to each house of the legislature. A “law” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the action of its member and which it may enforce the imposition of penalties.” In other words, part of a legislative body’s duties in establishing law, is to also establish the penalties imposed by that law.
We must be very clear on what data we collect represents. The UCR and NIBRS collect data reported by police agencies. Because the crime documented during the arrest, the offenses actually charged, and then the sentence/charge that is carried out or often pled down, it would be more beneficial, in my opinion, if we followed a random collection of cases from beginning to end and analyzed how that offense changed.
It is deeply troubling, lazy, and unethical that up to 96% of crimes in this country are resolved through plea bargains. This raises serious concerns about whether we have an overabundance of laws, an overwhelming number of offenders, or a justice system unable to uphold the constitutional principles of conducting cases properly and fairly.
I contend that the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission is an unconstitutional body. Its members are appointed by the governor rather than elected by the people. Our Constitution clearly establishes that laws must be enacted by legislators who are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. In contrast, the Sentencing Commission, appointed by the governor, serves to represent the governor’s interests—not those of the people. This is not representative government.
Prior to the commission’s creation in 1978, judges had nearly unlimited discretion in sentencing decisions. While sentencing guidelines provide consistency, I believe they should be brought directly to the legislature for approval. Furthermore, certain directives, especially those concerning violent felonies or major issues like the death penalty, should be placed on the ballot for direct citizen input. If the Minnesota Legislature can approve ballot provisions for constitutional amendments such as the recent clean water mandate, then surely public input on sentencing—critical to public safety—deserves the same consideration.
Public safety is one of the most vital responsibilities of our legislative bodies. If the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission is to remain in place, every recommendation or proposed change should be reviewed and voted on by the state legislature. This would ensure a more transparent and representative process that reflects the will of the people.
It would be beneficial to collect more data from the Minnesota Department of Corrections when considering sentencing guidelines. If we are taking a clear stance of rehabilitative efforts in our correctional facilities, how is that task being monitored and are we successful? As a staunch Constitutionalist, I see very little value in rehabilitative efforts if the offender is not interested in improving their life. And there are some offenders that simply cannot be rehabilitated.
To summarize, the UCR and NIBRS are pieces in a complex maze of data designed to provide clarity in crime, sentencing, and corrections. They cannot be used as a finite determiner of the end goal. The legislature must use a collaborative effort to consider public safety as a whole, the will of the people, the impact to the victim, and the offender, in that order, when determining a proper punishment.
As Montesquieu is quoted as saying, There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.
It is time for our governmental leaders in Minnesota to stand with us in pursuit of justice.
By- Ann C. Tepoorten
Hot Takes No One Asked For 
Leave a comment